The Former Prince Andrew Never Should Have Forwarded Those Emails
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.
On Tuesday, November 30, 2010, at 2:57 p.m., Prince Andrew—as he then was—received details of his upcoming trips as Britain’s official trade envoy: Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Vietnam, Singapore. At 3:02 p.m., he forwarded the entire email to Jeffrey Epstein.
At dawn today, that stupid and unethical decision—and many others like it—finally caught up with him. Police arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on the morning of his 66th birthday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and are now searching his homes. Prosecutors have not yet released specific charges, which are thought to relate to Andrew passing on sensitive government information to Epstein. The offense carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. His brother, King Charles III, was not officially informed in advance, but had signaled that the royal family would cooperate with any police inquiry.
Charles had already stripped Andrew of his title after the latest batch of Epstein files dropped, because the newly released emails proved beyond doubt that Andrew had lied about breaking off contact with Epstein, a convicted sex offender, in 2010. The disgraced former prince had also been evicted from his lavish residence in Windsor, just outside London, where he had lived effectively rent-free for many years. “Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,” Charles wrote in his statement on the arrest, adding: “Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.”
[Elizabeth Bruenig: Circles of Epstein hell]
In the United States, the Epstein affair is still seen primarily as a sex scandal. The financier was well known as a man who could easily find women—“no one over 25 and all very cute,” he told Elon Musk—to go on dates with his rich friends. (“Pro or civilian?” Steve Tisch, a co-owner of the New York Giants, asked about one such woman.) But here in Britain, this is a corruption scandal—and not just because Andrew sent Epstein confidential information about investment opportunities in Afghanistan. The police recently searched two addresses linked to Peter Mandelson, a former government minister and an ambassador to Washington who also lied about the extent of his friendship with Epstein.
During his time in government in the late 2000s, the files show, Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive emails to Epstein, on subjects such as the eurozone bailout of Greece, mixed in with laddish banter and discussions about how Mandelson might make money after leaving office. Mandelson has already been stripped of his seat in the House of Lords and his affiliation with the Labour Party; for a few hours, many in the press corps thought the scandal might bring down Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who had bafflingly appointed Mandelson as U.S. ambassador, despite his long record of other scandals. In the end, Starmer’s chief of staff, who had recommended Mandelson for the job, stepped down instead.
The allegations against Andrew date from a similar period, when he was a trade envoy for the British Foreign Office. That job turned out to involve flying around the world in high style—often to places run by oligarchs, dictators, and fellow royals, on the basis that they would be flattered to deal with a prince. Once there, he might also take the opportunity to watch, say, a Formula One race or have a few rounds of golf. Attractive young women seem to have been present at many of these events. Foreign intelligence services must have regarded Andrew’s appointment in 2001 as a gift from the heavens.
Everyone knew that this stank. At the time, I worked for The Daily Mail, a right-wing tabloid, which ran near-weekly stories on the latest questionable Andrew news. In 2007, for example, he sold his white elephant of a mansion, Sunninghill, which his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, had given him as a wedding present. A Kazakh oligarch paid millions over the asking price, and then never moved in.
The problem for the royal family was that Andrew and his then-wife, Sarah—known in Britain as “Fergie,” after her unmarried name—had no discernible talents but extremely expensive tastes. The journalist Andrew Lownie’s book on the couple, Entitled, recounts how Sarah used to run up room-service bills in hotels and then simply walk out. “She would just breeze out of the Four Seasons and The Palace in New York as if she was too important to pay,” one source told him. The couple separated in 1992, but Sarah continued to use her title, the Duchess of York, to boost her commercial ventures. In 1995, Buckingham Palace refused to pay off any more of her debts, and issued a statement saying that “the Duchess’s financial affairs are no longer Her Majesty’s concern.”
After this, despite making millions of dollars from her series of children’s books, Fergie went crawling to Epstein for loans. She wrote in 2010: “Is there any chance I could borrow 50 or 100,000 US dollars to help get through the small bills that are pushing me over. . Had to ask.” The files also contain a particularly grim exchange after Fergie denounced Epstein following his conviction, only to email him in a panic afterward, assuring him she never used the “P word”—pedophile. Both she and Andrew were tethered to Epstein by their greed and entitlement. They wanted millionaire lifestyles. More than that, they felt that they deserved them. Why? Because of an accident of birth in one case, and a fortuitous marriage in the other. The couple have been divorced for three decades but have never really moved on, possibly because they are mirror images of each other.
Entitled also makes a compelling case that Andrew is—to put it delicately—boorish and dim. It’s entirely possible that he never questioned why Epstein would work so assiduously to maintain their friendship. One was a good chap, wasn’t one? As trade envoy, Andrew became known for practical jokes and off-color remarks, which British diplomats had to tolerate because of his titles.
Until 2022, he also benefited from the protection of his mother. Andrew was widely perceived to be the late Queen’s favorite child: Charles was sensitive, unlike his parents, who had been raised as emotionally stunted aristocrats; Anne, a tougher, horse-mad child, was Prince Philip’s pet; Edward, like many youngest children, benefited from his parents softening with middle age. But no one really knew what to do with Andrew, who was nicknamed “Baby Grumpling” because of his temper. Like his nephew Prince Harry, he seems to have been most secure when in the tight-knit and hierarchical world of the military. Unlike Harry, though, he frequently reminded his peers of his royal status and was unable to make real friendships with people he considered below him.
[Read: What Jeffrey Epstein offered Prince Andrew]
Over the years, the late Queen had repeatedly smoothed Andrew’s way in life. But even she could not save him after his disastrous decision to give an interview to the BBC in 2019 about his connection with Epstein. He presented a portrait of blithe privilege, denying a deep connection with the financier by saying he had hosted him only for a “straightforward shooting weekend.” He claimed to have spent three days with Epstein in New York in 2010 for the sole purpose of breaking off their friendship. This was unbelievable at the time, and has now been debunked by the latest files. “Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!” a 2011 email from Andrew declares. The revulsion at his appearance on the BBC prompted his mother to strip him of his ceremonial titles and retire him as a “working royal.”
Charles has gone even further—supported by his son Prince William. Both the king and his successor believe that Andrew’s actions could destroy the royal family, and they are keen to amputate him from the Windsors and cauterize the wound. None of the statements from Buckingham Palace has carried the slightest hint that they believe Andrew has been wronged by a witch hunt. The king’s last statement before today included a telling line: “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and sympathies have been, and remain with, the victims of any and all forms of abuse.” Private companies are said to throw employees under the bus when the reputational damage gets too great. Andrew has been thrown under the state carriage.
All this presents quite a contrast with the U.S., where the fallout from contact with Epstein has largely been restricted to second-tier names—some of whom are provably guilty only of being chummy with a sex offender, which is not itself a crime. Like Andrew, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also claimed to have broken off contact with Epstein—in his case, in 2005, after seeing Epstein’s massage room in New York—but the files revealed that the association continued for many years afterward. However, Lutnick has the fortune to work for Donald Trump. The president is unlikely to request that anyone resign for being friendly with Epstein, since that would apply to him, too.
The former Prince Andrew acted as he did because he lived in a world in which someone like him never faced consequences. That isn’t true anymore. “Nobody is above the law,” Starmer said in response to the news. In Britain, at least, that might actually be true.